General Categories > Newsworthy
USA Today Article on Carry Permit Increases
SBarry:
Many hunters (fudds) think their 30-06 or 270 hunting rifle will be exempt from a future gun control bill. What they fail to realize is that "Sniper Rifles" will come right after the assault weapons confiscation, pray to God that never happens.
The "DC Snipers" stirred the pot on taking away any weapon that can kill over 100 yards, what does that make your 30-06? That is why it is so very important to not let them get any more bills passed to take away or limit anything to do with assault weapons.
The 50 BMG is thought to be the first thing on the anti's list to ban, because it can penetrate armor, acccording to them. My question is, Why are they worried about a gun that can penetrate armor, unless there are plans to send armored vehicles out to confiscate your local gun nut's cashe.
The official stance of NFOA is, "No compromise on any gun bills."
LitlRat
armed and humorous:
With all due respect, LitlRat, and with gratitude that you are a level 5 benefactor member, I question your statement that "No compromise on any gun bills" is the official stance of the NFOA. Where does it say that? Has that been voted on at some point before I became a member? If that question were to come up for a vote, the NFOA may well go along with you, if they haven't already (I was unable to find anything in the bylaws or the forum supporting that statement). However, if that's not the case, then your statement is just your opinion, right?
I'm only asking a question here, so don't get your undies in a knot! ;D
huskergun:
--- Quote from: LitlRat on August 05, 2009, 07:02:44 PM ---
The official stance of NFOA is, "No compromise on any gun bills."
LitlRat
--- End quote ---
Works for me.
SBarry:
--- Quote from: armed and humorous on August 05, 2009, 09:22:56 PM ---With all due respect, LitlRat, and with gratitude that you are a level 5 benefactor member, I question your statement that "No compromise on any gun bills" is the official stance of the NFOA. Where does it say that? Has that been voted on at some point before I became a member? If that question were to come up for a vote, the NFOA may well go along with you, if they haven't already (I was unable to find anything in the bylaws or the forum supporting that statement). However, if that's not the case, then your statement is just your opinion, right?
I'm only asking a question here, so don't get your undies in a knot! ;D
--- End quote ---
Don't worry, I don't wear any ;)
And yes, that is my opinion, but also an opinion shared by a lot of members. And we do not compromise! I think it should be our official slogan.
And as far as the level five thing, easiest decision that I have made in a long time. Much wiser than sending $35 to the NRA to waffle on our 2nd amendment stance.
armed and humorous:
Okay, LitlRat, thanks for clarifying that. I'm certainly not going to say you, or huskergun, or anyone else, is wrong to stand up for what they believe is right. Let me ask you another question, though. If you had to choose between having all guns made illegal and confiscated (which according to a lot of you is the goal of the antis), or keeping your hunting/target rifles/shotguns and handguns but with some limitations (such as magazine sizes, no full auto, registration, etc.), what would you choose? Let's say hypothetically, at least, that you have no other options outside of anarchy, succession, or armed revolution. (This would pretty much be the case if you and I and the others in groups such as ours couldn't muster the votes to get our way.)
Just something for you to ponder. ;D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version